You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘informal learning’ tag.

This study used a mixed-method design of quantitative and qualitative measures combined into one instrument and delivered via telephone interviews.

Yammer Functionality

Once you have signed up you can invite people, and/or follow people. To follow a person means every time they post a message, you can see that message in your timeline. A timeline is a real-time feed of all the posts from all the people you follow. While Yammer has a lot more functionality than outlined here, what is detailed is the main functionality that highlights Yammer’s benefits:

  1. You can read your colleague’s updates from a computer or even from your mobile phone. You can also download any files they upload. Note that your colleagues’ updates are visible to all who follow them.
  2. People who follow you, can read your posts on a computer or a mobile phone. They can also download any files you upload. Note that your updates are visible to all who follow you.
  3. You and your colleagues can send private, direct messages to each other that the others will not see. This is good for taking conversations offline.
  4. You can search the messages of all the people you follow.
  5. People can tag their posts and search for or follow all related messages that are tagged the same way.

This is a section of a research study, to read more, go to the Table of Contents.

Advertisements

Wenger (1998) highlights an obvious yet very compelling point that we are always learning and we are always participating in various communities from work groups to families. Therefore, learning is also situated in a community, therefore learning is also social (Wenger, 1998). It is logical then that the concept of communities of practice emerged from situated cognition (Brown, et al., 1989), previously discussed, and Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), that learning is enhanced through social interaction. In fact communities of practice in the work place produce significant learning and innovation (Brown & Duguid, 1991).

Specifically, Wenger et al. describe (2002, p. 4) communities of practice (CoP) as a group of people who share an interest, a craft, and/or a profession. These groups can either grow organically because of people’s interests in the same field, or they can be created with the goal of sharing and learning from each other (Wenger, et al., 2002).

Eloquently stated by Wenger (1998, p. 8): “learning is an issue of sustaining the interconnected communities of practice through which an organization knows what it knows and thus becomes effective and valuable as an organization.” Therefore, if a tool like a microblog, can help create, strengthen and sustain communities of practice it would be impacting learning and the effectiveness, or performance, of the organization. “Communities of practice are thus key to an organization’s competence and the evolution of that competence” (Wenger, 1998, p. 241). In fact, researchers state that they “have seen communities of practice improve organizational performance at companies as diverse as an international bank, a major car manufacturer, and a U.S. government agency” (Wenger & Snyder, 2000).

Wenger describes three key characteristics of communities of practice: domain, community and practice (Wenger, 2010). A domain does not equate to an area of expertise; in fact, members can have different areas of expertise within the same domain. Therefore, domain could be a field, such as education, which could have teachers, instructional designers, performance strategists all part of the same community of practice because “They value their collective competence and learn from each other…” (Wenger, 2010). Wenger (2010) goes on to elaborate in each of the three characteristics. A community is defined as a group of people who interact and learn from each other as they pursue their domain. Finally, communities of practice do in fact share a “practice”. In the example above, different people with different titles are still all practitioners in the domain of education.

“Communities develop their practice through a variety of activities. Table 3 provides a few typical examples:” (Wenger, 2010)

Table 3: Examples of CoP Activities

Problem   solving “Can we work on this design and   brainstorm some ideas; I’m stuck.”
Requests   for information “Where can I find the code to   connect to the server?”
Seeking   experience “Has anyone dealt with a   customer in this situation?”
Reusing   assets “I have a proposal for a local   area network I wrote for a client last year. I can send it to you and you can   easily tweak it for this new client.”
Coordination   and synergy “Can we combine our purchases   of solvent to achieve bulk discounts?”
Discussing   developments “What do you think of the new   CAD system? Does it really help?”
Documentation   projects “We have faced this problem   five times now. Let us write it down once and for all.”
Visits “Can we come and see your   after-school program? We need to establish one in our city.”
Mapping   knowledge and identifying gaps “Who knows what, and what are   we missing? What other groups should we connect with?”

 

Most people’s objection to participating in communities of practice is that they do not have time (Lujan & Day, 2010; McDermott, 2010), they consider participation to be something extra that they have to do, taking them away from the task at hand (Hara, 2009, p. 21). However, updating a post on a microblog, even if several times a day, can be done in a matter of minutes, and is therefore a minimal time investment. In addition, if employees found participation valuable, they would make the time. Isn’t the true goal of communities of practice to help with the task, or project at hand? Isn’t that the true just-in-time learning and performance support? It always benefits people when they can connect with another person who has experience and knowledge in a given area – there in lays the value.

This is a section of a research study, to read more, go to the Table of Contents.

Hutchins’ (1995) definition of distributed cognition, simply put, is the notion that cognition is not confined by what is inside one person’s brain. Instead, it is distributed across many things, such as other people, artifacts and the environment. Meaning, we don’t just learn in our heads, we talk to others, experience things in our environment, and use tools such as a paper and pencil to write out a math problem. A great example of distributed cognition, as described by Hutchins (1995), is the navigation of a large ship–many people and systems come together to navigate collectively. Not one person alone could navigate the ship–you really need the collective.

In any organization, it is the collective driving it forward. Even though there may be individual contributors, no one person alone can help a company, for example, meet its revenue goals. Again, it has to be the collective. It is the “informal communication channels that make work proceed smoothly, synchronized among a group of workers without the need for direct verbal communication” (Norman, 1993, p. 153). In Norman’s (1993) examples this non-verbal communication is observed in person. However, with today’s knowledge workforce being distributed across many locations, observation takes on different forms, like reading Yammer posts. In addition, in many cases, the work doesn’t have to be as closely synchronized as employees would need to be to operate a ship. Yet, at the end of the day, the work product is still that of the collective.

Microblogs offer just this capability: the possibility of “observing” each other’s actions without actually being there, without working closely together. In fact answering the question: “What are you working on?” produces work activity update posts in real time during the day. “…knowing and context are irreducibly co-constituted, and learning is fundamentally connected with and constitutive of the contextual particulars through which it occurs (S. A. Barab & Kirshner, 2001; Cobb & Yackel, 1996)” (Sasha A Barab & Plucker, 2002).

Distributed cognition provides a framework, or lens through which to analyze cognition that focuses (unit of analysis) on the system, rather than the individual (Hutchins, 1995). Cognition is not just distributed within (Minsky, 1986) but also between learners and the objects they use to solve problems (Schwartz, 2008). Therefore, when researching microblogs, focus will be placed on the interaction between individuals and the tool as well as between individuals and other individuals.

This is a section of a research study, to read more, go to the Table of Contents.

Theories

As mentioned previously, microblogs offer something that is not normally easy to acquire, information as to what employees are doing real time through status updates. Therefore, the link between microblogs and performance support, learning and ultimately, performance improvement becomes clear. It follows that the theories influencing this research include situated cognition which considers learning and performance improvement in context, and distributed cognition, which also focuses on context and encourages a view of microblogs as a system, and finally communities of practice which can account for the groups that may emerge through microblogging.

Situated Cognition

Learning is an ongoing, real time process, as opposed to separate events (Moon, 2004, p. 11). Situated cognition theory, as described by Brown et al. (1989, pp. 32-42), explains that knowing is inseparable from doing. Skills are acquired through continuous authentic activity in authentic contexts and by communicating with peers and experts about those activities in those contexts (Herrington & Oliver, 1995). Microblogs offer the ability for employees to communicate with peers while participating in authentic activity, their daily work.

Lave and Wenger (1991) propose that the most accounts of learning ignore its social nature. Yet researchers agree that knowledge is the result of collaborative construction in a situated cognition environment (Ahmad, 2009; Bransford, Vye, Kinzer, & Risko, 1990). Everything human beings conceive of and think about is adapted to the environment, that is, situated, because what people perceive, how they conceive of what they are doing (or working on) and the physical activity of working on it, all develop together (Clancy, 1997). “In situated cognition, knowledge is created or negotiated through the interactions of the individual with others and the environment. Individuals acquire knowledge through activities rather than obtaining information in discreet packages organized by instructors or a system” (Ahmad, 2009). Tyre and von Hippel (1997, p. 71) found that “traditional, decontextualized theories of adaptive learning and of collaboration could be improved by taking into account that learning occurs through people interacting in context.” It follows that through continuous, authentic, situated, collaborative activity, people can improve their performance (Brown, et al., 1989).

As microblogs help uncover what people are doing, their day-to-day tasks, and provide this visibility into what others in the organization are doing. People can use it to create opportunities for informal connections and collaboration with others in ways we did not have the ability to do previously. Using a tool like a microblog, where one can read the updates of colleagues real time, one may be able to create connectedness and engagement leading to sharing and ultimately just-in-time, or point-of-need learning—a performance support environment that uses people as conduits versus the technology-centered performance support and knowledge management systems of yesterday. “Learning is that which enables you to participate successfully in life, at work, and in the groups that matter to you. Informal learning is the unofficial, unscheduled, impromptu way people learn to do their jobs” (Cross, 2007, p. 15).

This is a section of a research study, to read more, go to the Table of Contents.

Microblogs are used primarily to communicate. Public microblogs, such as Twitter, can be a powerful channel for things like breaking news (Greenhow, 2009). However, these tools can have many other uses that stem from that communication. One example that emerged early on is the notion that public microblogs can be a powerful marketing and branding tool (Dunn, 2010). Therefore, they can also be used to advertise employment, and, conversely, look for a job (Kibbe, 2009). Zappos.com and many other companies use a public microblog to communicate with their customers and offer customer service. At conferences, during presentations, many participants use a public microblog to share their thoughts about the presentation and in some cases, their updates are projected to participants at the conference while it is taking place (Ebner, 2009). Yes, people have found a plethora of ways to use microblogs.

It is only fairly recently that people started wondering about microblogs’ educational value. For example, microblogs have been examined in an academic environment and results have shown that usage fostered informal learning (Ebner, Lienhardt, Rohs, & Meyer, 2010). Dunlap and Lowenthal (2009) describe their use of Twitter, a public microblog, to encourage free-flowing, just-in-time interactions and how those interactions enhance social presence in online courses. They clearly see the instructional value of a microblog but how do students feel about social media and social networking? Batchelder (2010) answered this question and found that, among other things, students developed confidence in their abilities to find the information they needed, experienced self-actualization and personal growth, they became committed to lifelong learning and saw value through finding solutions via collaboration and keeping in touch with a support group. The hypothesis is that microblogs can be used this way during the work day, in an informal manner day in and day out (instead of just in conjunction with coursework) and will achieve similar results.

Corporate testimonials have also emerged that tout internal microblogs, like Yammer, as a tool that can be used for learning (Lupfer, 2010). Indeed, microblogs can also be a peer support tool, such as, when used for asking questions of the people that follow you (Greenhow, 2009). A study that primarily focused on user acceptance of internal corporate microblogs, uncovered that among a variety of communication needs, active users also use it to ask questions and solve problems (Zhang, Qu, & Hansen, 2010, p. 3). The following categories as can be seen across the bottom of the chart emerged in Zhang, Qu, & Hansen’s study and they are overall consistent with many of the categories that emerged in this research.

Figure 1: Different Groups’ Benefit Perception of Yammer

Earlier research conducted on regular blogging, not microblogging, showed a lot of overlap in the categories that emerged between Jackson, Yates, & Orlikowski’s study (2007, p. 5), and this research, that explained why people blog.

Table 1: Types of Reported Benefits of Blogging

The first study that asked: “whether this new social medium can be harnessed to make our work more productive?” examined the use and value of microblogging in a fortune 500 firm revealed that Yammer helps people: (Zhang, Qu, Cody, & Wu, 2010, p. 7)

  1. Find out what others are working on
  2. Reach out to ask questions
  3. Find people who share similar interests
  4. Learn more about internal company news such as events or product releases
  5. Learning information about industry trends and news
  6. Make people’s work more visible to others

The list above is ordered from the most common use to the least common and we can see that finding out what others are working on is number one value and yet making my work visible to others is the least common. In the content coding analysis, researchers found that the largest portion of the messages are about internal or external news and less than 16% are about individuals talking about their current work. Interesting that most participants also said they often found information relevant to them. Again, overall, there is a lot of synergy in the categories that emerged from this study on why people use Yammer with this research, see Figure 2 (Zhang, Qu, Cody, et al., 2010, p. 7). The researchers cited here conducted a very thorough analysis of Yammer use, both with interviews and by analyzing actual messages exchanged on Yammer.

Figure 2: Yammer Helps Me… Survey

The intent of this research was to focus broadly across many different organizations in various industries and with sizes ranging from 5 employees to over 200,000 employees. While this limits the depth of this analysis within each organization, it does attempt to highlight what findings are consistent across these organizations and uncover best practices. The hypothesis in this research focuses on Yammer’s ability to connect people and through those people, provide assistance on-the-job.

Researchers, Zhao, Rosson, Matthews, & Moran (2011), reported that microblogging benefited work collaboration in project teams because team members could provide short updates on what they were accomplishing as they worked, this additional real-time collaboration, caused the teams to be much more in synch. For Zhao, Rosson, Matthews, & Moran (2011), audience size was restricted by putting project team members into a Yammer group and it showed that raised awareness between team members had a positive effect on collaboration and enabled timely feedback and expertise sharing with a restricted audience—the project team members.

This research does not restrict the audience size and in fact, this researcher postulates that the more people are using the system, the more opportunities there will be for people to reach out and help each other.

The study that focused on microblogging within teams found these types of examples (Zhao, et al., 2011, p. 3), which are consistent with many of the examples participants mentioned in these findings as well, see Table 2. However, notice the chart depicting how much people posted in each category. Project work activity statuses seems to be far more prevalent but only when people posted messages within the project group. They posted far less outside of that group to all their colleagues, which is consistent with this research as well.

Table 2: Categories of Microblog Posts

One of the important benefits of Yammer mentioned by previous researchers is that barriers to participation have plummeted because microblogging is, among other things, a low-cost operation, both in terms of time and cognitive load (McFedries, 2007; Zhang, Qu, Cody, et al., 2010). This too was consistent with the findings in this study.

While a lot of the studies mentioned above are similar from various aspects to this one, none of them focused on examining the potential of employees using microblogs to answer questions and uncover what a person is working on real time and therefore be able to provide learning opportunities and performance support in the workplace—all this by engaging the communities that internal microblogs foster.

This is a section of a research study, to read more, go to the Table of Contents.

“EPSS are primarily applicable in the workplace to promote learning and offer immediate performance guidance” (Ahmad, 2009, p. 8). Researchers agree that performance support systems can help improve communication and, ultimately, performance (Ahmad, 2009; Bayram & Crossman, 1997; Chang, 2007; Gamson, 1994; Marion, 2002; Raybould, 1995). Nguyen and Klein (2008) showed that participants using an electronic performance support system performed significantly better than those receiving formal training. It makes sense that aided task performance yields better results than unaided (Frank Nguyen, Klein, & Sullivan, 2005; van Schaik, Barker, & Famakinwa, 2007). The most effective performance support is context specific and provides assistance with a given task in a given situation (Tessmer & Richey, 1997).

In this researcher’s experience, the hardest aspect of designing a truly effective electronic performance support system is ascertaining when each employee is working on which task—in other words, the information needed to serve up the right kind of support. With the use of microblogs and consistently answering the question: What are you working on? Peers can easily read what people are working on and when and offer their support. Questions posted on a microblog are more straightforward in terms of performance support but only if they are answered in a timely fashion.

In addition, the perceived most effective aspect of an EPSS is the advisory, job-oriented or problem solving components (Chang, 2004). In fact, packaging and bringing expert knowledge to users is a key goal in creating an EPSS (Hile, Campbell, & Ghobary, 1994). Perhaps this is why EPSS generally focus on bringing content to users as opposed to connecting people to more seasoned colleagues, or experts. However, a microblog can bring not just content to employees when they need it but it can actually connect them to the expert to talk to. Performance support systems have not fundamentally been viewed as systems that can bring people, not just content together. Ultimately, a performance support system can be used as a cognitive tool for employees in organizations (Wild, 2000).

This is a section of a research study, to read more, go to the Table of Contents.

Peter Henschel, former director of the Institute for Research on Learning (IRL), said (Cross, 2007, p. xiii): “People are learning all the time, in varied settings and often most effectively in the context of work itself. ‘Training’ ─ formal learning of all kinds ─ channels some important learning but doesn’t carry the heaviest load. The workhorse of the knowledge economy has been, and continues to be, informal learning (p. xiiip. xiii).” Cross (2007) defines informal learning as any learning that takes place outside of the classroom, which he considers formal learning. Cross (2007, p. 243) explains that study results vary, but findings still show that the majority, anywhere from 70 to 90 percent, of learning in organizations takes place informally. Yet, corporations spend 80% of their training budget on formal training and only 20% on informal (p. 17). Deepak (Dick) Sethi, the CEO of Organic Leadership, said (Cross, 2007): “Informal learning is effective because it is personal, just-in-time, customized, and the learner is motivated and open to receiving it. It also has greater credibility and relevance” (p. 17). Yammer is in fact used during and throughout the work day, in the context of work itself, so, if, as a person is working, and they can use a microblog to receive information they can learn from that is relevant to what they are working on, then this could be a really powerful informal learning tool. People are more likely to engage when content is relevant to them (Ambrose et al., 2010, p. 83)

Sargeant, et al. (2006) conducted a study that focused on high-scoring physicians. Results showed that a fundamental component of success was informal learning opportunities, especially through working with patients, and working with and having discussions with colleagues. Similarly in a study that examined how nurses become competent practitioners, informal learning strategies proved to be key (Sharoff, 2006).

The use of a microblog itself is an informal experience. While some people post updates once a day, others update it every time they change tasks. The question is: can a glance at a status message about work activities help us learn and even perform better? Will questions posted in the moment of need, just in time, be answered fast enough to provide real value?

This is a section of a research study, to read more, go to the Table of Contents.

(A new TOC link will be inserted weekly until entire research paper is published)

Abstract

Chapter I – INTRODUCTION

Background

Problem Statement

Purpose of the Study

Research Questions

Significance of the Research

Chapter II – LITERATURE REVIEW

Informal Learning

Electronic Performance Support Systems

Microblogs

Theories

Situated Cognition

Distributed Cognition

Communities of Practice

Chapter III – METHODOLOGY

Yammer Functionality

Recruiting Participants

Materials and Procedure

Messages to Recruit Participants

Interview Protocol

Chapter IV – RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Participant Characteristics

The researcher’s approach to the study

Research question 1: Does using a microblog in the workplace allow employees to become more aware of what each other is doing?

Yammer Experiences

Getting back to: 1. research question: Does using a microblog in the workplace allow employees to become more aware of what each other is doing?

Research question 2: Does the reading of status messages posted on a microblog lead to employees learning something new or receiving assistances with their jobs?

Interactions Because of Yammer

How Did Participants Find Posts that Grabbed their Attention?

Results of Using Yammer

Research question 3: Will the use of microblogs result in people feeling like they are part of communities where they can reach out to each other for assistance?

What Value Yammer Provides

Yammer’s Challenges

CHAPTER V – DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

Discussion of Results

Research question 1: Does using a microblog in the workplace allow employees to become more aware of what each other is doing?

Research question 2: Does the reading of status messages posted on a microblog lead to employees learning something new or receiving assistances with their jobs?

Does reading Yammer posts that prompt participants to reach out to each other contribute to learning and performance?

Does reading Yammer posts contribute to learning and performance when people don’t reach out to each other?

Connections, Learning and Performance Improvement

Research question 3: Will the use of microblogs result in people feeling like they are part of communities where they can reach out to each other for assistance?

Implications

Guidelines on How to Use Yammer to Maximize Its Effectiveness in the Workplace

Recommendations for Future Research

Knowledge Management

Expert Networks

Limitations of Study

Conclusion

References

A-cross-organizational-study

Renata E. Gorman
Teachers College, Columbia University

Abstract

In this day and age when knowledge workers are entering and exiting organizations practically on a daily basis, many organizations struggle with how best to arm their workforce with the knowledge they need to maximize their performance thereby increasing the organizations efficiency and effectiveness. This study investigated whether or not emerging social media tools like microblogs can be used by organizations to foster informal learning, provide performance support and ultimately improve performance through the creation and utilization of communities of practice. The hypothesis was that when participants used the tool to: 1. Post questions, 2. Answer Yammer’s question: “What are you working on?” they would reveal information that would inspire colleagues, in their Yammer community, to reach out and offer performance assistance. This would result in colleagues learning from each other and assisting each other and would eventually turn these groups into Communities of Practice.

Findings indicated that:

  1. Participants used the tool to post many different types of information, not just questions, and work activity updates;
  2. Participants did not generally reach out because of work activity updates but they did reach out to respond to questions;
  3. Participants perceived that their learning, effectiveness and efficiency were increased because of their Yammer use;
  4. Participants received assistance on the job through many different types of information that they post, not just questions and work activity updates;
  5. Participants felt supported by the Yammer community.

Keywords: microblog, Yammer, Twitter, informal learning, performance support, communities of practice, situated cognition, distributed cognition, knowledge management, expert networks

This is a section of a research study, to read more, go to the Table of Contents.

Ahmad, N. (2009). Examining the effectiveness of a mobile electronic performance support system in a workplace environment. Unpublished Dissertation, Columbia University, Teachers College, New York.

Barab, S. A., & Kirshner, D. (2001). Guest editors’ introduction: Rethinking methodology in the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 5-15.

Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165-182.

Batchelder, C. W. (2010). Social software: Participants’ experience using social networking for learning. Unpublished Dissertation, Capella University.

Bayram, S., & Crossman, D. M. (1997). The utilization of EPSS in the Turkish Air Force. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AECT National Convention.

Bransford, J. D., Vye, N., Kinzer, C., & Risko, V. (1990). Teaching thinking and content knowledge: Toward an integrated approach. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 381-413). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A.-S. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(475), 475-497.

Chang, C.-C. (2004). The relationship between the performance and the perceived benefits of using an electronic performance support system (EPSS). Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 41(3), 343-364.

Chang, C.-C. (2007). A study on the quantitative analysis of the development and implementation for electronic performance support systems. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34(3), 275-284.

Chell, E. (1998). Critical incident technique. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative Methods and Analysis in Organizational Research: A Practical Guide (pp. 51-72). London: Sage.

Clancy, W. C. (1997). Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(175-190).

Cross, J. (2007). Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 61-77.

Degler, D., & Battle, L. (2000). Knowledge management in pursuit of performance: the Challenge of context. Performance Improvement, 39(6). Retrieved from http://www.ipgems.com/writing/kmcontext.htm

Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2).

Dunn, H. M. (2010). Social media as a branding tool in heterogeneous organizations: A collective case study approach. Unpublished Thesis, Clemson University.

Ebner, M. (2009). Introducing live microblogging: How single presentations can be enhanced by the mass. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 2(1), 91-100.

Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education – A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers & Education, 55(1), 92-100.

Fu, Y., Xiang, R., Liu, Y., Zhang, M., & Ma, S. (2007). Finding experts using social network analysis. Paper presented at the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence Washington, DC.

Gamson, Z. F. (1994). Collaborative learning comes of age. Change, 26(5), 29-44.

Greenhow, C. (2009). Tapping the wealth of social networks for professional development. Learning & Leading with Technology(June/July).

Guptara, P. (1999). Why knowledge management fails. Knowledge Management Review(9 July/August), 26-29.

Hara, N. (2009). Communities of practice: fostering peer-to-peer learning and informal knowledge sharing in the work place. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

Hasanali, F., Hubert, C., Lopez, K., Newhouse, B., O’Dell, C., & Vestal, W. (2002). Communities of practice: A guide for your journey to knowledge management best practices. Houston, TX: American Productivity & Quality Center.

Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the n-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 73-90.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1995). Critical characteristics of situated learning: Implications for the instructional design of multimedia. Paper presented at the Learning with Technology.

Hile, M. G., Campbell, D. M., & Ghobary, B. (1994). Automation for clinicians in the field: The validity of a performance support system. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 26(2), 205-208.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kibbe, C. (2009). Social networking media enhances your job search. New Hampshire Business Review, 31(24), 12.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Locke, C., Levine, R., Searls, D., & Weinberger, D. (2000). The cluetrain manifesto: The end of business as usual Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group.

Lujan, N., & Day, B. (2010). Professional learning communities: Overcoming the roadblocks. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 76(2), 10-17.

Marion, C. (2002). Attributes of performance-centered systems: What can we learn from five years of EPSS/PCD competition award winners. Technical Communication, 49(4), 428-443.

Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13(6), 522-525.

McDermott, R. (2010). Harnessing your staff’s informal networks. Harvard Business Review (0017-8012), 88(3), 82-88.

Minsky, M. (1986). The society of mind. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Moon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: theory and practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative health research, 10(1), 3.

Nagle, M. (2010). The Twitter Train Has Left the Station. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/the-twitter-train-has-left-the-station/

Nguyen, F., & Klein, J. D. (2008). The effect of performance support and training as performance interventions. Performance Improvement Quarterly 21(1), 95-114.

Nguyen, F., Klein, J. D., & Sullivan, H. (2005). A comparative study of electronic performance support systems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18(4), 71-86.

Nonaka, I. (2005). Knowledge management: critical perspectives on business and management. New York, NY: Routledge.

Norman, D. (1993). Things that make us smart: defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co.

Raybould, B. (1995). Performance support engineering: An emerging development methodology for enabling organizational learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(1), 7-22.

Sandelowski, M. (1995). Focus on qualitative methods: Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(2), 179-183.

Sargeant J., Mann K., Sinclair D., Ferrier S., Muirhead P., Van der Vleuten C., et al. (2006). Learning in practice: experiences and perceptions of high-scoring physicians. Academic Medicine, 81(7), 655-660.

Schwartz, N. H. (2008). Exploiting the use of technology to teach: The value of distributed cognition. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(3), 389-404.

Sharoff, L. (2006). A qualitative study of how experienced certified holistic nurses learn to become competent practitioners. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 24(2), 116-124.

Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85-115.

Tyre, M. J., & von Hippel, E. (1997). The situated nature of adaptive learning in organizations. Organization Science 8(1), 71-83.

van Schaik, P., Barker, P., & Famakinwa, O. (2007). Making a case for using electronic performance support systems in academic libraries. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18(3), 411-428.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meanings, and identity Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice.   Retrieved July 18, 2010, 2010, from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice A guide to managing knowledge Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Wenger, E., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: the organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review (0017-8012), 78(1), 139-145.

Wild, M. (2000). Designing and evaluating and educational performance support system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 5-20.

Woolsey, L. K. (1986). The critical incident technique: An innovative qualitative method of research. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 20(4), 242-254.

This is a section of a research proposal, to read more, go to the Table of Contents

Reni’s Twitter Updates

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Advertisements